Originally posted by: Genesys
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Moore's exercise in religion forced everyone to view HIS vision of American jurisprudence . . . that somehow HIS God's law was THE law. Moore's distortion (and disregard) for the law has direct repercussions for all people that come before the court . . . not only through his direct actions with regards to the commandments but by nature of his position as an authority with the judiciary.
In San Francisco, no one is forced to practice homosexuality or condone homosexuality. Newsom is certainly disregarding the law but his disregard for the law has absolutely no ramifications for anyone other than homosexuals. In the process, Newsom is upholding arguably the most important principles in our system . . . equality and justice.
No reasonable person believes the letter of the law has primacy over our Constitution. It doesn't matter if Moore is elected, selected, or dejected . . . he doesn't make the law he is responsible for executing the law. Accordingly, it makes sense to send him packing when he wants to do it on his religious whims instead of Constitutional guidance. Newsom should be held accountable for his blatant disregard for the laws of California. By the same token, he deserves accolades for fighting for a minority being faced with the tyranny of the majority.
Umm...most of the laws in all legal systems in most countries are based off religious principles. Not only that, but the decalogue is also accepted by Judaism, and are generally accepted by most people on earth to be good priniples to live by. No where did Moore say [or IMO suggest] that his God's law was the law of the land, but obviously some people misinterpreted his actions as such. Basically he was presenting a monument to the source where our laws are based. Plain and simple. He was not trying to force you to accept Chrisitanity [or Judaism] as the one true religion, nor was he trying to convert you to his way of religious thinking. Oh yes, im sure you know, but the Constitution states that "
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" No where did Moore make or alter ANY laws. Way to blow things out of proportion.
No, Newsom's actions are not forcing anyone to practice homosexuality or condone it, but this is forced acceptance of it. And, if Newsom's actions had no ramifications for anyone other than homosexuals, how do you explain the controversy this issue is creating? And you're saying his actions are not going to force insurance, health care, and legal institutions to change some policy of theirs?
Facebook
Twitter